Camargo v. Toledo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a union attorney may have “certain ethical obligations” to a union member whom he represents in a grievance proceeding, even if “his principal client is the union”
• reiterating that “negligence is insufficient to support a breach of the duty of fair representation suit against a union”
• observing that, under such a rule, “the union attorney would often be the only defendant against whom a disappointed [union member] could proceed”
• reiterating that “negligence is insufficient to support a breach of the duty of fair representation suit against a union”
• noting that “attorneys who perform services for and on behalf of a union may not be held liable in malpractice to individual grievants where the services the attorneys perform constitute a part of the collective bargaining process”
• noting with approval other courts that 2 “have read Atkinson to prohibit claims, both state and federal, tort and otherwise, against 3 individuals who are employees of or acting as agents or representatives of their unions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).